Placement of campaign signs stirs debate

October 11, 2012|Pamela Dittmer McKuen | COMMUNITY LIVING

Detractors say campaign signs are unattractive and annoying, while proponents defend their right to free speech. (Peter Gridley, Getty Images)

The presidential election is just weeks away, and campaign signs are proliferating like spring flowers. In neighborhoods that are governed by associations, the signs often are more divisive than the candidates they support.

Detractors say signs are unattractive and annoying, while proponents defend their right to free speech. Both sides are partly right.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the past that political signs are protected free speech, but condominium associations and town house associations have always been treated as private property," said Ed Yohnka, director of communications and public policy for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "Therefore, it is not necessarily true that a condominium occupant has the right to place any sign that they want to in their unit or on their little piece of property."

Some jurisdictions are more supportive of campaign signage than others. The New Jersey Supreme Court in July ruled that an owner could place election signs on his front door and side window of his town home over the objections of the association (Mazdabrook Common Homeowners Association vs. Wasim Khan). A few states, including California and Wisconsin, have passed legislation that bars associations from prohibiting placement of campaign signs. Illinois has not done so.

"From our perspective, a yard sign is the most personal and intimate form of political expression someone can have," said Yohnka. "It's not just an advertisement of a candidate but about what I think. The unfortunate thing is under Illinois law, a condominium owner or a town house owner may not have the kind of protection we'd like them to have with regard to this sort of expression. We think it is really important that they do."

The Illinois Condominium Property Act, Section 18.4(h), allows boards to adopt rules, but the rules must not impair any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Section 4 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution. Freedom of speech is one of the guaranteed rights.

However, a guaranteed right is not an absolute right, said association attorney Michael C. Kim of Chicago.

Just as the federal government can regulate certain aspects of political signage such as size and placement, so can associations. The association's rules must be reasonable, or they could be overturned in court.

"You could regulate the size of a political sign as long as it is not ridiculous, like a 3-inch-by-5-inch sign," Kim said. "But a reasonable restriction that keeps someone from putting up a billboard in the front lawn could be appropriate."

Associations can also limit how long campaign signs may be posted, just like they often do with holiday decorations.

"People start running for president four years in advance," Kim said. "You don't want to see 'Vote for X' that long. The association might say that signs may be put up 30 or 60 days before an election and must be taken down the day after."

Christine Evans, president and chief executive officer of Vanguard Community Management in Schaumburg, offered several suggestions for dealing with an influx of signs through the Nov. 6 Election Day: If your association has signage rules in place, which most do, enforce those rules as you would for any other event or opinion. Such rules typically prohibit placing signs on common elements or limited common elements, in which case residents opt to place them in their windows. If signs are allowed, rules often address their size and how long they may be posted. Don't make exceptions for the current presidential election.

"If you alter the terms for one, you will continually be weighing the arguments for allowing a sign and then defending yourselves for the action," she said.

As for a rule that completely disallows campaign signs? Kim has serious doubts whether it would be upheld by the courts.

Yohnka hopes it wouldn't.

"As a general rule, we're always concerned about limitations on speech," he said. "In this instance, now is a very important time in terms of electing a president, something we do only every four years. People ought to be able to express what they think about it."